Free agent cannot be created

[bahman]

Here is the argument:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The first premise is correct since causation always aims to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.

[Guide]

Free agent cannot be created
Postby bahman » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:34 pm

Here is the argument:

1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The first premise is correct since causation always aims to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.

Aren't you proving that there can not be the "concept" "free"? I don't see why the group would take this to show freedom can not be "created", rather than that it can not be at all.


If I understand, substantively, freedom to mean knowing, rather than not knowing, I speak of freedom when I know how to tie my shoes. Because just fidgeting about with the laces, frustrating myself, unable to keep them together, confused, I feel deprived of a kind of freedom. Freedom can name a kind of "structure" of congenial knowing.

Note:

Due to the ongoing imbecile viciousness of the censors, the group may be shut down or interfered with at any time. Ergo, the chances of proper discussion coming into its own has become very unlikely.

[bahman]

Aren't you proving that there can not be the "concept" "free"?

By free agent I mean a being with ability to freely decide. "free" stands for free decision.

If I understand, substantively, freedom to mean knowing, rather than not knowing, I speak of freedom when I know how to tie my shoes. Because just fidgeting about with the laces, frustrating myself, unable to keep them together, confused, I feel deprived of a kind of freedom. Freedom can name a kind of "structure" of congenial knowing.

No, I am not talking about freedom in action.

[Ecmandu]

I like smoking cigarettes.

I cannot smoke them without a billion constraints.

These are called limitations, and I embrace a large number of them

[bahman]

I like smoking cigarettes.

I cannot smoke them without a billion constraints.

These are called limitations, and I embrace a large number of them

I think you are talking about freedom of action. Freedom of action is different from free will. Here we assume that free will exist for sake of argument. Do you think that you cannot freely decide?

[Faust]

Causation does not require knowledge. That claim doesn't even make sense. I didn't read the rest.

[Guide]

Guide wrote:
Aren't you proving that there can not be the "concept" "free"?

By free agent I mean a being with ability to freely decide. "free" stands for free decision.

Yea. You are right. The Catholics and Kant understand freedom this way, "potentia ordinata" or energia in Aristotle. And, as you say, it is really not freedom at all. This pushes the question outside the laws of thought set up first by Aristotle and completed by Leibnitz.

Although, I don't really understand your formula "can not be created". You say, then, can be, but not created? This is Aristotle.

[Guide]

"Causation does not require knowledge. That claim doesn't even make sense. I didn't read the rest."

Because we must understand the concept of causality. In other words, the world must fit the human intelligence or there could be no science or knowing.

This is why Hume bothers to show the logical break in the concept. E.g., that one can think a event without a prior cause without contradiction.

[Faust]

The phrase is ambiguous. Causation may be a process that exists everywhere without anyone knowing anything. We may understand miracles, or the concept of miracles, but that doesn't mean that miracles ever occur.

Causation is a byproduct of the way humans define events. Nothing happens outside of time because "occurrence", as we use the word, requires the concept of time. Causation is the most apt description of certain aspects of our experience, due to the scale on which we live. Events themselves would be different if we lived faster or slower or bigger or smaller.

Hume was only arguing against God. It's stupid to argue for or against causation. It's not a theory that needs proving or disproving. It's not a law of nature. It's just a description. A human narrative. Philosophers don't know this.

[Ecmandu]

The phrase is ambiguous. Causation may be a process that exists everywhere without anyone knowing anything. We may understand miracles, or the concept of miracles, but that doesn't mean that miracles ever occur.

Causation is a byproduct of the way humans define events. Nothing happens outside of time because "occurrence", as we use the word, requires the concept of time. Causation is the most apt description of certain aspects of our experience, due to the scale on which we live. Events themselves would be different if we lived faster or slower or bigger or smaller.

Hume was only arguing against God. It's stupid to argue for or against causation. It's not a theory that needs proving or disproving. It's not a law of nature. It's just a description. A human narrative. Philosophers don't know this.

Umm... let's say hypothetically that philosophers don't know this.

Casino owners live off it!

You're just wrong

[Mr Reasonable]

Causation does not require knowledge. That claim doesn't even make sense. I didn't read the rest.

You beat me to it. I was literally about to post the same thing.

[bahman]

Causation does not require knowledge. That claim doesn't even make sense. I didn't read the rest.

Let me give you a couple of example to show you contrary: (1) A seed which turns into a tree, (2) Me picking up a cup of tea, (3) Elementary particles interacting with each other. In first case knowledge is encrypted in DNA of seed. In second case, I first should know what I want to proceed afterward. In third case, elementary particles simply follow laws of nature.

[bahman]

Guide wrote:
Aren't you proving that there can not be the "concept" "free"?

By free agent I mean a being with ability to freely decide. "free" stands for free decision.

Yea. You are right. The Catholics and Kant understand freedom this way, "potentia ordinata" or energia in Aristotle. And, as you say, it is really not freedom at all. This pushes the question outside the laws of thought set up first by Aristotle and completed by Leibnitz.

Although, I don't really understand your formula "can not be created". You say, then, can be, but not created? This is Aristotle.

I mean that you cannot create a machine which if free. Or God cannot create us.

[Guide]

The phrase is ambiguous. Causation may be a process that exists everywhere without anyone knowing anything. We may understand miracles, or the concept of miracles, but that doesn't mean that miracles ever occur.

Causation is a byproduct of the way humans define events. Nothing happens outside of time because "occurrence", as we use the word, requires the concept of time. Causation is the most apt description of certain aspects of our experience, due to the scale on which we live. Events themselves would be different if we lived faster or slower or bigger or smaller.

Hume was only arguing against God. It's stupid to argue for or against causation. It's not a theory that needs proving or disproving. It's not a law of nature. It's just a description. A human narrative. Philosophers don't know this.

You make a chain of intelligent comments, which I grant, and conclude in a line of horrible dreck. The volcanic energy around the word "God" is the villain culpable in many cases of fine chains of reason snapping.

We have common sense certainty, enough for daily activity. I'm sure you will grant as much. On the other hand, we have appeals to rationality or some manner of absolute certainty. So, you seem to appeal to the everyday sense in which the question "why" is the source of the notion of causality, rather than a theory, a logic, or a developed metaphysics. The problem arises if common sense judges itself. So, for instance, we come to see that common sense misleads us in the issue about what motion is. Common sense requires some sort of "formula" to set itself at rest so far as it becomes anxious, as it were, to explain why the earth stands still and moves when seen from a distance. The issue raised by Hume is in principle the same. One has to ask if the sense of certainty we have in daily life is changing, and if so whether these issues enter into it. The issue of "God" means here the same as that common sense allows clarity in normal understanding to be a sufficient measure as though the world were made for us, to rightly fit our intelligence. Simple understanding understands that the earth is standing still, we understand that with great clarity and rely on it in every ordinary sense, and yet it is false. It's true that formulas for explaining away the defects in common understanding are readily available to us, but they come out of a kind theoretical explanation, as of Heisenberg who goes into this issue.

[Guide]

Guide wrote:
Guide wrote:
Aren't you proving that there can not be the "concept" "free"?

By free agent I mean a being with ability to freely decide. "free" stands for free decision.

Yea. You are right. The Catholics and Kant understand freedom this way, "potentia ordinata" or energia in Aristotle. And, as you say, it is really not freedom at all. This pushes the question outside the laws of thought set up first by Aristotle and completed by Leibnitz.

Although, I don't really understand your formula "can not be created". You say, then, can be, but not created? This is Aristotle.

I mean that you cannot create a machine which if free. Or God cannot create us.

But we can exist and are free? So, you claim this is a proof that the human is not created? But, instead, eternal.

[Guide]

The continuing insane and crude harassment by vicious supervisory censors on this board compels me to add that conditions are becoming amazingly bad for free discussion.

[bahman]

Guide wrote:
Guide wrote:
Aren't you proving that there can not be the "concept" "free"?

By free agent I mean a being with ability to freely decide. "free" stands for free decision.

Yea. You are right. The Catholics and Kant understand freedom this way, "potentia ordinata" or energia in Aristotle. And, as you say, it is really not freedom at all. This pushes the question outside the laws of thought set up first by Aristotle and completed by Leibnitz.

Although, I don't really understand your formula "can not be created". You say, then, can be, but not created? This is Aristotle.

I mean that you cannot create a machine which if free. Or God cannot create us.

But we can exist and are free? So, you claim this is a proof that the human is not created? But, instead, eternal.

By us I mean agent who are in charge of controlling a human body. And yes, we as agents are eternal. We however need to show that something which cannot be created cannot be destructed. It then follows that we are eternal. I will open a new thread on the second topic shortly.

[Faust]

Causation does not require knowledge. That claim doesn't even make sense. I didn't read the rest.

Let me give you a couple of example to show you contrary: (1) A seed which turns into a tree, (2) Me picking up a cup of tea, (3) Elementary particles interacting with each other. In first case knowledge is encrypted in DNA of seed. In second case, I first should know what I want to proceed afterward. In third case, elementary particles simply follow laws of nature.

No. Knowledge is not encrypted in DNA. That's maybe a nice caption on some nice notepaper. Information is encrypted, if you will, in DNA. That does mean that the organism that the DNA is in has the information. Information is an event.

[Faust]

You make a chain of intelligent comments, which I grant, and conclude in a line of horrible dreck.

That's hurtful. Just sayin'.

The volcanic energy around the word "God" is the villain culpable in many cases of fine chains of reason snapping.

As soon as i figure out what it means, I'm stealing that line.

We have common sense certainty, enough for daily activity. I'm sure you will grant as much. On the other hand, we have appeals to rationality or some manner of absolute certainty. So, you seem to appeal to the everyday sense in which the question "why" is the source of the notion of causality, rather than a theory, a logic, or a developed metaphysics. The problem arises if common sense judges itself. So, for instance, we come to see that common sense misleads us in the issue about what motion is. Common sense requires some sort of "formula" to set itself at rest so far as it becomes anxious, as it were, to explain why the earth stands still and moves when seen from a distance. The issue raised by Hume is in principle the same. One has to ask if the sense of certainty we have in daily life is changing, and if so whether these issues enter into it. The issue of "God" means here the same as that common sense allows clarity in normal understanding to be a sufficient measure as though the world were made for us, to rightly fit our intelligence. Simple understanding understands that the earth is standing still, we understand that with great clarity and rely on it in every ordinary sense, and yet it is false. It's true that formulas for explaining away the defects in common understanding are readily available to us, but they come out of a kind theoretical explanation, as of Heisenberg who goes into this issue.

You're correct in that causation is always and only about God. Regular people live life the way Nietzsche described it. Unfortunately, once people realize this, they usually try to live in a way that's impossible for them. Everything lies along a spectrum. Some things are more caused than others. There should be nothing strange about this notion. Only when you overthink it does it become strange at all.

[Ecmandu]

Faust, never accuse someone that overthinking things is bad, it's a great way to make enemies.

I think this whole argument hinges on whether so can be made free agents. The first step would be cyborgs, and then self autonomous free agents.

[Guide]

"You're correct in that causation is always and only about God. Regular people live life the way Nietzsche described it. Unfortunately, once people realize this, they usually try to live in a way that's impossible for them. Everything lies along a spectrum. Some things are more caused than others. There should be nothing strange about this notion. Only when you overthink it does it become strange at all."

"You're correct in that causation is always and only about God."

Cause means a number things, including final cause and first mover. Final cause means that human life has a better and worse way to play out, just as a seed might produce brilliant pink magnolia blossoms, or be blown away into the sea. Causation in the sense Hume discredited is the conditioned response sort of causality. He said we might just be used to a "this, then that" situation. "No glue" is the catchphrase, between the first this, then that. For Aristotle that was a relatively unimportant issue, a sub answer to one of the main answer to the question "why?", instrumental cause, a things pushes another thing, directed by an agent with knowledge. So, the issue is an accurate description of experience, and how experience differs from simple sensing. Such a distinction has never been adequately made.

What is "people live life the way Nietzsche described it".

How do you understand Nietzsche's "description"?

"Only when you overthink it does it become strange at all."

Don't humans vigorously challenge each other with words instinctualy and ordinarily? We call this life in a city. Ergo, the necessity to think has a basis in human life at the lowest level. Humans aren't turnips or dirt clods, for those things such problems don't arise. Thinking through such things has led to technology, and technology has become a requirement for life in the contest for mere survival against the other human groups. Modern physics, mathematical physics, has its basis in the move from causal thinking to thinking in terms of mathematical function (which allows for suspending the question in favor of the "working hypothesis" and the mere "it works" or it don't. Ergo, the flight from science into mere technology.)

[Guide]

"I think this whole argument hinges on whether so can be made free agents. The first step would be cyborgs, and then self autonomous free agents.'

Is the question, rather, if it can be proved, to students of reason, that they can be made? If they existed, they might be so powerful that they would despise the need to prove their free agency. Or, is that our own situation?

[Guide]

Guide wrote:
Guide wrote:
Guide wrote:
Aren't you proving that there can not be the "concept" "free"?

By free agent I mean a being with ability to freely decide. "free" stands for free decision.

Yea. You are right. The Catholics and Kant understand freedom this way, "potentia ordinata" or energia in Aristotle. And, as you say, it is really not freedom at all. This pushes the question outside the laws of thought set up first by Aristotle and completed by Leibnitz.

Although, I don't really understand your formula "can not be created". You say, then, can be, but not created? This is Aristotle.

I mean that you cannot create a machine which if free. Or God cannot create us.


But we can exist and are free? So, you claim this is a proof that the human is not created? But, instead, eternal.

By us I mean agent who are in charge of controlling a human body. And yes, we as agents are eternal. We however need to show that something which cannot be created cannot be destructed. It then follows that we are eternal. I will open a new thread on the second topic shortly.

I think Aristotle was a bit ify here too, on the issue of the psuke or form of the human being (or, its highest part) and its destructibility. The medieval thinkers tried to uncrumple this difficult mountain gorge for many centuries.

[Ecmandu]

"I think this whole argument hinges on whether so can be made free agents. The first step would be cyborgs, and then self autonomous free agents.'

Is the question, rather, if it can be proved, to students of reason, that they can be made? If they existed, they might be so powerful that they would despise the need to prove their free agency. Or, is that our own situation?

For those not as sharp as guide on this, autocorrect turned "ai" (artificial intelligence) into the word "so".

To answer guide, hypothetically, being a "meathead" rather than pure spirit, could actually be a form of ai!

[bahman]

Causation does not require knowledge. That claim doesn't even make sense. I didn't read the rest.

Let me give you a couple of example to show you contrary: (1) A seed which turns into a tree, (2) Me picking up a cup of tea, (3) Elementary particles interacting with each other. In first case knowledge is encrypted in DNA of seed. In second case, I first should know what I want to proceed afterward. In third case, elementary particles simply follow laws of nature.

No. Knowledge is not encrypted in DNA. That's maybe a nice caption on some nice notepaper. Information is encrypted, if you will, in DNA. That does mean that the organism that the DNA is in has the information. Information is an event.

Well. I can buy that that is information that is encrypted in DNA. This information however is structured otherwise a thing like tree can never give rise from a seed. Can we agree up to here. That is basically premises (1) and (2). What is the your next challenge?